Little Shop of Horrors: Seymour=Karma Houdini

I took a look at the novelization based on the film. Here is the relevant text highlighted.

I think this means we can update the article to reflect that Seymour did intentionally kill Mushnik. At minimum this means moving Karma Houdini from YMMV back to the main article..I think. I don't really understand the "YMMV" idea as a whole, because it can apply to nearly any trope.

edited 22nd Feb '12 11:24:26 PM by TacoWiz

A novelization isn't Word of God, and what makes you think that this is a Special Efforts topic anyway? Special Efforts is for clean-up jobs that are too big for one person to do.

Moving to Film.

edited 22nd Feb '12 11:29:31 PM by Madrugada

Taco Wiz, do we really need a dozen fucking topics for this? Seriously?

This is specifically about the article. This is discussion related to editing of TV Tropes, not to film.

Anyway, here is a screenshot from the screenplay that was posted on Mondo Musicals proving Seymour intended to kill Mushnik. A screenplay by the screenwriter Howard Ashman counts as Word of God, I believe.

mushnik_death_script_tv_tropes_5608.gif uploaded just fine The markup to use:

source is http://mondomusicals.blogspot.com/2012/02/little-shop-of-horrors-screenplay.html

This is subjective even with the Word of God because the final product is still ambiguous, no matter what the film makers' intentions were. If it wasn't subjective there would be no argument on the matter, and Karma Houdini could be moved back to the main page. This is clearly not the case.

Word of God doesn't immediately make things that are subjective not-so. For example, if a film-maker had intended a villain to be a Complete Monster, it doesn't mean the audience definitely views them as such in the final product. Everyone sees things from a different perspective, after all.

Complete Monster is a subjective trope.

"They are a horrible person." is subjective.

"They (verbed) a (noun) into a (noun)." is not subjective.

edited 26th Feb '12 11:49:39 PM by TacoWiz

If two or three more people agree with Fiwen I'll give up on this. So far the thread appears to be dying because nobody cares about a silly musical about a funny plant.

Isn't there supposed to be a remake?

That's kinda off-topic, but yeah, there was supposed to be a non-musical remake of the Roger Corman film that the musical is loosely based off of. There hasn't been any news on it in awhile, so I think it's dead.

Troper is sad. I'd watch the remake.

I'd watch it because I'm a hardcore Little Shop of Horrors fan, but if it's not based on the musical then I probably wouldn't enjoy it. I think a much better idea would be a Darker and Edgier film adaption of the musical that focuses more on the drama than the humor.

I will be accused of vandalism unless I get some sort of concensus before making my move.

I don't see why you feel it needs to be moved. It's been perfectly fine sat on the YMMV page for years, with the for and against viewpoints. To put it back on the main page you would have to delete the anti-Karma Houdini viewpoint, which would count as arguing in the main page.

Plus, your previous argument doesn't work for the he (verbed) a (noun) into a (noun) if you're talking about 'he deliberately backed Mushnik into the plant', which is definitely ambiguous in the film, script backing or not. If that is ambiguous, it therefore means that Seymour only did a few morally ambiguous actions and can redeem himself more easily by destroying the plant. The audience doesn't feel he needs punishing any further.

I understand where you're coming from with this, and I can definitely see the viewpoint that makes Seymour a Karma Houdini, but I don't think it's anywhere as clear cut as you seem to think.

(Sorry, I know you wanted other peoples' viewpoints, but I thought I should explain mine a bit more and reply to your previous point)

I don't see how what Seymour did was redemption.

If he decided not to take then job with NBC, which he got because of the plant, and stayed in Skid Row, then he would've been redeemed. He would've been double redeemed if he didn't get Audrey, either.

Instead he gets the girl AND the dream life, all because of his crimes.

/nerdtangent

Is the idea that "killing the plant=redemption" something people believe? I don't think I've heard it before.

It's definitely been suggested before by a few of the people I know, I think when we were doing the musical at college and talking about the stage/film differences.

You were involved with a production of Little Shop?

Dude, I'm GREEN with envy.

• ba-dum-tish*

Killing the plant has some redeeming value in the sense that it prevents additional deaths and Seymour has to risk his life to do it. Though actively rewarding the action is doing that weird bit where someone is treated as a hero for solving a problem that is largely their fault in the first place.